Well, there is some data to support this concept.
First, here is a quote from a post Randy made demonstrating the myriad of bacteria that exist in natural sea water and our tank water:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
I guess the interesting question(s) is/are how many species of bacteria are present? 5 or 500 in a tank?
The number will be way higher than 500, if you consider all organisms, although the most abundant 50 may account for nearly all of the mass. Many thousands of species can be found in a single teaspoon of soil, for example.
Here's a paper showing bacteria isolated from seawater samples, and that does not count the vast numbers that will be attached to surfaces or in sediment, live rock, etc:
Characterization of bacteria isolated from seawater in Toyama Bay. Kimata, Keiko; Shimizu, Miwako; Shima, Tomoko; Kanatani, Junichi; Isobe, Junko; Kurata, Takeshi; Watahiki, Masanori. Toyama Institute of Health, Imizu, Japan. Toyama-ken Eisei Kenkyusho Nenpo (2008), Volume Date 2007, 31 135-144.
Abstract
Bacterial species were isolated from seawater in Toyama Bay, Japan and identified by analyzing 16S rDNA sequences. Bacterial species identified were 417 out of 640 isolates and none of the identified bacteria were resistant to tetracycline or oxacillin. These results concluded a clean and safe environment of Toyama Bay.
This paper shows many species isolated from the surfaces of a single sponge species:
Phylogenetic Diversity and Spatial Distribution of the Microbial Community Associated with the Caribbean Deep-water Sponge Polymastia cf. corticata by 16S rRNA, aprA, and amoA Gene Analysis. Meyer, Birte; Kuever, Jan. Max-Planck-Institute for Marine Microbiology, Bremen, Germany. Microbial Ecology (2008), 56(2), 306-321.
Abstract
Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE)-based analyses of 16S rRNA, aprA, and amoA genes demonstrated that a phylogenetically diverse and complex microbial community was assocd. with the Caribbean deep-water sponge Polymastia cf. corticata Ridley and Dendy, 1887. From the 38 archaeal and bacterial 16S rRNA phylotypes identified, 53% branched into the sponge-specific, monophyletic sequence clusters detd. by previous studies (considering predominantly shallow-water sponge species), whereas 26% appeared to be P. cf. corticata specifically assocd. microorganisms ("specialists"); 21% of the phylotypes were confirmed to represent seawater- and sediment-derived proteobacterial species ("contaminants") acquired by filtration processes from the host environment. Consistently, the aprA and amoA gene-based analyses indicated the presence of environmentally derived sulfur- and ammonia-oxidizers besides putative sponge-specific sulfur-oxidizing Gammaproteobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria and a sulfate-reducing archaeon. A sponge-specific, endosymbiotic sulfur cycle as described for marine oligochaetes is proposed to be also present in P. cf. corticata. Overall, the results of this work support the recent studies that demonstrated the sponge species specificity of the assocd. microbial community while the biogeog. of the host collection site has only a minor influence on the compn. In P. cf. corticata, the specificity of the sponge-microbe assocns. is even extended to the spatial distribution of the microorganisms within the sponge body; distinct bacterial populations were assocd. with the different tissue sections, papillae, outer and inner cortex, and choanosome. The local distribution of a phylotype within P. cf. corticata correlated with its (1) phylogenetic affiliation, (2) classification as sponge-specific or nonspecifically assocd. microorganism, and (3) potential ecol. role in the host sponge.
And this article has a nice roundup of the species they found in a cross ocean transect:
Community structures of actively growing bacteria shift along a north-south transect in the western North Pacific. Taniguchi, Akito; Hamasaki, Koji. Graduate School of Biosphere Science, Hiroshima University, 1-4-4 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima, Japan. Environmental Microbiology (2008), 10(4), 1007-1017.
Abstract
Bacterial community structures and their activities in the ocean are tightly coupled with org. matter fluxes and thus control ocean biogeochem. cycles. Bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU), halogenated nucleoside and thymidine analog, has been recently used to monitor actively growing bacteria (AGB) in natural environments. We labeled DNA of proliferating cells in seawater bacterial assemblages with BrdU and detd. community structures of the bacteria that were possible key species in mediating biochem. reactions in the ocean. Surface seawater samples were collected along a north-south transect in the North Pacific in Oct. 2003 and subjected to BrdU magnetic beads immunocapture and PCR-DGGE (BUMP-DGGE) anal. Change of BrdU-incorporated community structures reflected the change of water masses along a north-south transect from subarctic to subtropical gyres in the North Pacific. We identified 25 bands referred to AGB as BrdU-incorporated phylotypes, belonging to Alphaproteobacteria (5 bands), Betaproteobacteria (1 band), Gammaproteobacteria (4 bands), Cytophaga-Flavobacterium-Bacteroides (CFB) group bacteria (5 bands), Gram-pos. bacteria (6 bands), and Cyanobacteria (4 bands). BrdU-incorporated phylotypes belonging to Vibrionales, Alteromonadales and Gram-pos. bacteria appeared only at sampling stations in a subtropical gyre, while those belonging to Roseobacter-related bacteria and CFB group bacteria appeared at the stations in both subarctic and subtropical gyres. Our result revealed phylogenetic affiliation of AGB and their dynamic change along with north-south environmental gradients in open oceans. Different species of AGB utilize different amt. and kinds of substrates, which can affect the change of org. matter fluxes along transect.
Now here is another quote from Randy where he indicates that he (as others also have experienced) gets less cynobacteria growth when dosing vinegar as opposed to vodka:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
I'd add vinegar into the mix of organics considered. I use mostly vinegar and a little vodka. In my system that works better (less cyano) than vodka alone. It's hard to compare to commercial products, for the reasons mentioned above.
Now taking this information together, there are many different species of bacteria in our systems. These different species of bacteria feed and multiply at different rates depending on the particular carbon source available. For example, it appears that cynobacteria grows more rapidly when fed vodka as opposed to vinegar. As such, it follows that the two different polymer carbon sources used in the WM and BP products may result in different growth rates of particular species of bacteria (obviously, the higher the number of bacteria the more nutrients that the bacteria consume). These species of bacteria may consume nitrate and phosphate at differing rates and/or proportions, just like different species of macro algae consume nitrate and phosphate in differing rates and proportions, i.e., calupra consumes more phosphate and nitrate (and grows faster) than halamedia (there are studies on the varying degree of nutrient uptake with differing species of macro algae, but I do not have them handy). As such, a particular carbon source (in this case different polymers) will result in different numbers of varying species of bacteria in a system -- each of which will consume different amounts of nitrate and phosphate at varying rates. Now I am not saying that either the WM or BP product is better for exporting nitrate or phosphate. Rather, I am merely suggesting that the fact that they both use different polymers indicates that each of these products may not function the same way in terms of assisting in the export of nitrate or phosphate and that one product may be better than the other at exporting one or both of them.
in order to increase bacterial biomass. The uptake ratio is due to ribo and deoxy ribonucleic acid synthesis, amongst others, so regardess of the type of bacteria propogated, the ratio of uptake is the same. 
Jon also stated it would take about 4 weeks to start seeing results. Also I could stop dosing Bacteria and carbon into the water stream.
